Playoff (with very few changes)

[Goldmember]

This plan would involve very little change...

At-large slots are based on BCS standings. Boise State was elimintaed for only playing and beating one BCS-conference opponent. TCU was eliminated because of Utah.

I have been tracking this plan for a few years. It worked very well in '06-'07 and '07-'08. But in '08-'09 it was challenged by how weak the ACC and Big East were compared to the Big 12 South.

Some people would claim that the Big Ten and Pac Ten have a "bye" becuase they play no conference championship. This is true; but fewer teams would be included from these conferences (until/unless they expand to 12). Also, the Big East would essentially be demoted to half of a BCS conference. But they would play their regional at home.

Interested in any comments. I think it's the closest thing to perfect.

 

[Schnoodler]

This would be a huge improvement over what we have for sure. And if perfect means capturing the best team it'll probably do that most of the time. But I think one of the knocks of the current system is that it virtually locks out non BCS candidates. You're system is probably still a little exclusive.

 

[dinkything]

This plan would involve very little change...

Interested in any comments. I think it's the closest thing to perfect.

your proposal, if enacted, would likely kill the great game of college football as we know it...

what we have right now, though imperfect, is the closest thing we have to perfection...

seeing that you have plenty of time on your hands, i have an asignment for you...

please check popularity (i.e. television ratings) of college basketball vs. college football across the USA...over the past 5-10 years...

hint...as college football continues to explode in popularity (likely due to existing format of the entire season being a playoff)...college basketball's popularity has been waning for years (likely due to march madness, which is great...but has rendered the entire 'regular' season to be borderline meaningless...

iirc, basketball's tv ratings are now less than 1/2 of what they were earlier this decade (sorta like the dow jones 30 industrials...or the s & p 500)

in short, you have proposed a 'solution'...which is in search of a problem that doesn't exist...so don't kill the goose that continues to lay golden eggs!!

 

[dpodoll68]

It's close. No way it would ever happen, because as you acknowledged in your post, you're giving the Big Ten and Pac 10 first round byes simply by virtue of the fact that they don't play a conference championship game.

My idea is very similar to yours, but I would scale it back to 10, with the BCS champions getting a spot in the quarterfinals, and the 4 at-large teams battling for the two remaining spots. This year, it would've been Utah, Alabama, Texas, and Ohio St. (Of course Texas Tech fans would've complained this year, but come back and talk to me when you don't lose by 44 points). Seed the conference champs 1-6 based on BCS standings, and the two play-ins get 7 and 8 seeds.

I realize my system is also exclusionary to non-BCS conferences, but statistical evidence is shown that they can't compete with the big boys in an average year. Utah was an exception, and I think any team of their caliber will always have a shot in a playoff system.

 

[dpodoll68]

...but has rendered the entire 'regular' season to be borderline meaningless...

No, no, NO!!!!! PLEASE stop with this BULLSH*T argument!! This gets brought up every time someone starts talking playoff system, and it has absolutely no merit. You still must play well enough to get into the tournament, regardless of the format. No team is going to have a .400 winning percentage and still get into the tournament. A team is not going to get an at-large bid to March Madness if they did not have, at the very least, an above-average regular season. It would be even more pronounced in football, because you're fighting for one of (depending on the system being discussed) 2-10 at-large bids, as opposed to the 34 that exist for basketball. Ergo, by definition, under no circumstances is the regular season anything even close to quasi-resembling meaninglessness.

The flagging ratings for college basketball have more to do with early entry into the NBA, and the resulting dilution of the product quality, than anything else. Imagine if kids could go to the NFL after their freshman year, and how much that would affect the product every Saturday. Regardless of how many people are watching during the regular season, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any college basketball fan who is not glued to their TV at every opportunity once the Big Dance starts.

And to say that a problem doesn't exist is ignoring reality. In a perfect season, where you have only 2 undefeated schools, both of whom are in BCS conferences, everything is fine. But the fact is that most seasons far more than 2 teams have a strong argument to be in the championship. It usually comes down to who is playing well at the end of the year, and who has the biggest fan base. This year, USC, Utah, and Texas (at least) all had just as good a claim as Florida and Oklahoma to be in the title game. How do you explain that away?

 

[dinkything]

...

The flagging ratings for college basketball have more to do with early entry into the NBA, and the resulting dilution of the product quality...

And to say that a problem doesn't exist is ignoring reality. In a perfect season, where you have only 2 undefeated schools, both of whom are in BCS conferences, everything is fine. But the fact is that most seasons far more than 2 teams have a strong argument to be in the championship. It usually comes down to who is playing well at the end of the year, and who has the biggest fan base. This year, USC, Utah, and Texas (at least) all had just as good a claim as Florida and Oklahoma to be in the title game. How do you explain that away?

'one and done' in college basketball will be addressed very shortly...per info coming out of the recent nba briefing on the collective bargaining agreement...

look for the "one and done" to initially be replaced by a "two and done".......

david stern wants it...the ncaa wants it...the players IN the league want it (as it protects current jobs)...

do you think this will have a measureable impact on tv ratings?? you may need to think again.

regarding southern cal not making the bcs championship game...they gotta quit losing to inferior opponents...losing to a 42-point dog (stanford) in 2007 should knock 'em out of contention...losing to unranked underdog (at the time) oregon state in '08 should knock 'em out of contention...just beat the teams you are supposed to beat!!

texas...start by winning the big 12 south...then we can discuss the bcs championship game...

utah...beat 1 bcs team in '08 (a 3-9 michigan team, nonetheless)...start scheduling a few more heavyweights in your non-conference schedule...same with boise state...then we can discuss the big show...

it's currently set up just fine...don't mess with a good thing...the system is 'right' far more often than not...

 

[Schnoodler]

I do not pay attention to the national NCAA football scene much. I don't watch other games. I don't care what who's ranked #1 unless we're #2. I enjoy the football gophers very much. When they're done so is my interest.

Gopher BB on the other hand I watch more intently. I pay attention to who's hot, I follow it until the gophers are out. But then I still watch and remain interested.

The ONLY reason why I follow the national scene in basketball and not football is because of the playoffs. With a playoff system in place like basketball as long as my team still has a shot every game means something. But with basketball because I have played closer attention I still remain interested. I am much more likely to watch a tourney game. I'm pretty sure I haven't watched a football bowl game that didn't have the gophers in it for about 10 years. And if I have it was post feast couch snooze time.

There are a bunch of homers like me that the BCS system loses every year. This represents a lost opportunity for increased viewership. And that translates to a lost opportunity for advertising dollars. The NCAA basketball is flat out more interesting to me than football specifically because of the Dance vs. BCS system. There are a lot of people like me, and we represent lost revenue for the NCAA.

And this is why status quo will not survive.

 

[dinkything]

I do not pay attention to the national NCAA football scene much. I don't watch other games. I don't care what who's ranked #1 unless we're #2. I enjoy the football gophers very much. When they're done so is my interest.

Gopher BB on the other hand I watch more intently. I pay attention to who's hot, I follow it until the gophers are out. But then I still watch and remain interested.

The ONLY reason why I follow the national scene in basketball and not football is because of the playoffs. With a playoff system in place like basketball as long as my team still has a shot every game means something. But with basketball because I have played closer attention I still remain interested. I am much more likely to watch a tourney game. I'm pretty sure I haven't watched a football bowl game that didn't have the gophers in it for about 10 years. And if I have it was post feast couch snooze time.

There are a bunch of homers like me that the BCS system loses every year. This represents a lost opportunity for increased viewership. And that translates to a lost opportunity for advertising dollars. The NCAA basketball is flat out more interesting to me than football specifically because of the Dance vs. BCS system. There are a lot of people like me, and we represent lost revenue for the NCAA.

And this is why status quo will not survive.

schnoodler,

wanna bet that the 'status quo will not survive'?

your quote above about remaining interested 'as long as my team still has a shot' explains your lack of interest in gopher football...and college football in general...

you, and the few dozen others 'like' you across america, represent only a small bit of 'lost revenue'...which the ncaa, and the college football world, hardly notice...and can easily handle...

 

[Schnoodler]

I think my sentiment is strongly shared. in the end the post season is about generating revenues. If you don't believe the money is the number one factor than I'm pretty sure your moniker is related to at least one of two anatomical features of your body.

On top of that a great number of folks who might qualify as 'interested' football fans do not share your sentiment. Enjoy the status quo 'dinky thing', while it lasts.

 

[dinkything]

I think my sentiment is strongly shared. in the end the post season is about generating revenues. If you don't believe the money is the number one factor than I'm pretty sure your moniker is related to at least one of two anatomical features of your body.

On top of that a great number of folks who might qualify as 'interested' football fans do not share your sentiment. Enjoy the status quo 'dinky thing', while it lasts.

schoodler,

we can agree money is rather important in the world of college athletics...all the more reason to keep football's regular season relevant (unlike college baskeball's) ...and avoid a silly 16 team d1a football playoff...

...packed football stadiums and high television ratings for 'regular season' games will continue to rule the roost

 

[Schnoodler]

I don't think most bowls are doing that well are they? The top ones sure, but that's just a snippet of the potential revenue. There is a bigger picture.

 

[dpodoll68]

all the more reason to keep football's regular season relevant (unlike college baskeball's)

There you go again. Please explain to me how it's irrelevant.

 

[dinkything]

There you go again. Please explain to me how it's irrelevant.

i'll try to make this as brief as i can...

on nearly every updated 'mock' ncaa tournament bracket i've seen, the gophers are included, even if they lose thursday to northwestern in the big 10 tourney...

tubby's gophers started the year at 12-0...then went to 16-1...

however, they've lost 8 of their last 13...for a regular season record of 21-9...

apparently, the gophers still have an opportunity to win the whole shootin' match, in spite of their performance over the last 6 (and most crucial) weeks of the 'regular' season...

and there are numerous other bb teams, similar in record and performance to the gophers, who also have a chance to win it all...

let's contrast this picture with what we see in football...

most, including myself, would suggest the southern cal trojans have been the most dominant college football team in america over the past 7-8 years...

yet, in the 11 years that the bcs format has been in place, southern cal has only been to the 'big dance' twice (i.e. only two bcs national championship games)...of which they won in 2004...and lost in 2005 (to vince young & co.)...

see what happens...you snooze for just 3-1/2 hours during a lengthy college football season...and you don't get the invite...

that is, in part, what makes the 'regular season' so important, and special, in college football...and relatively meaningless in college hoops (although i happen to enjoy hoops...and think highly of tubby)

every regular season game means something in college football...not so much in basketball, where you can regularly mail in games on those cold january nights when no one is watchin'

college hoops' popularity is slidin'...which is just the opposite of what's happenin' in college football

a change of the 1-n-done rule ain't gonna matter a whole heckuva lot, either...

 

[dinkything]

I don't think most bowls are doing that well are they? The top ones sure, but that's just a snippet of the potential revenue. There is a bigger picture.

the minor bowls are not for the fans...as they have more appetizing things to look forward to...

the music city/motor city bowls are for the players, their families, girlfriends, the coaches, etc. you could get rid of half these bowls...and most wouldn't notice...

 

[Schnoodler]

You really can't pick and choose what counts and what doesn't. In the end all factors will be considered and a solution that addresses and satisfies the most and creates the biggest cash will win out. Sorry man, narrowing the argument may make you feel like you have the right answer, but as I said there is a bigger picture.

 

[RodentRampage]

The BCS is a walking corpse. It's just a question of when it finally stops walking. An 8 or even 16 team playoff would not undermine the regular season. If you were currently in the #1 seed going into your final game of the regular season, you might be assured of a spot in the playoffs, but your going to fight hard to keep that #1 spot rather than drop down to a #6 seed.

If only the conference champions made the playoffs, this would only strengthen the regular season. You could have an 8 team playoffs with the 8 best conference champions.

 

[dpodoll68]

and relatively meaningless in college hoops

You've already upgraded from "irrelevant" to "relatively meaningless."

You also tipped your hand by saying that you can sleepwalk through one game in basketball and still be fine. That is true, but one game does not equal an entire season. You are attempting to equate the two.

It is unquestionable that, under current systems, the football season is more meaningful than basketball's. You can have a poor season in basketball, and still advance by winning the conference tournament. I have yet, however, to see a team go 0-28 and win their conference tournament. When that happens, you can consider yourself right. In most cases, you lose one in football, and you're done. But even with a playoff, football's would still be very meaningful, but only slightly less so by a small margin to a select number of teams.

But by any measure, "less meaningful" does not equal "irrelevant". The regular season in every sport is inherently meaningful, as it determines who advances on to the postseason (or lack thereof, in D-IA football).

Sorry pal, until they start playing March Madness in November, the regular season has meaning.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

People keep talkin' without lookin' up some information... So here we go. For comparison, here are the ratings of this years bowls:

BCS Title Game, 15.8 (+10%)
Rose, 11.7 (+5%)
Fiesta, 10.4 (+35%)
Sugar, 7.8 (+11%)
Capital One, 6.4 (-30%)
Orange, 5.4 (-27%)
Champs Sports, 4.5 (+41%)
Cotton, 4.4 (+26%)
Gator, 4.1 (+58%)
Emerald, 4.0 (+29%)
Meineke Car Care, 3.9 (+22%)
Alamo, 3.9 (+70%)
Holiday, 3.9 (+5%)
Chick-fil-A, 3.4 (-23%)
Poinsettia, 3.2 (+88%)
Outback, 2.7 (-7%)
Hawaii, 2.6 (+100%)
Music City, 2.4 (-29%)
Liberty, 2.3 (-34%)
Sun, 2.2 (-4%)
New Mexico, 2.2 (+29%)
Las Vegas, 2.2 (+5%)
Motor City, 2.1 (-9%)
Humanitarian, 2.1 (+200%)
EagleBank, 1.9 (New Bowl)
International, 1.8 (+29%)
Papajohns.com, 1.7 (-12%)
GMAC, 1.7 (+70%)
Armed Forces, 1.4 (-18%)
St. Petersburg, 1.1 (New Bowl)
Independence, 0.8 (-50%)
New Orleans, 0.7 (-50%)
Insight, 0.4 (0%)
Texas, 0.1 (-67%)

I think it is more prudent to compare viewership of a possible college football playoff to the NFL, since it is the same sport, length of game, advertising times, etc etc. I think one of the big reasons that the Big Dance is so popular is because games are being played simultaneously and right after one another. In 6 hours on one day you catch glimpses of 9 games, and then the next day there is more. This adds to the excitement. Anyway... NFL viewership:

Wild Card Matchups: FOX and CBS both had 7.1 rating / 11 Share

Divisional: Rating (households)
Pittsburgh- San Diego 21.4 (16.5 million)
New York- Philadelphia 20.9 (16.1 million)
Baltimore- Tennessee 17.0 (13.1 million)
Arizona- Carolina 15.8 (12.2 million)

Conference Championships
Eagles-Cardinals 24.0
Ravens-Steelers drew 23.8

Superbowl 42.1

The main difference between these ratings is the fact that it is pro vs college sports. The NFL has a MUCH higher viewership than college football does, and the Superbowl is one of the (if not THE) biggest thing to watch on tv each year. All things considered, the BCS title game had the same share as the worst Divisional matchup. I don't know if that is good for college bowls or bad. But you can see how few people watched the wildcard games - The Capital One Bowl and Sugar Bowl matched it. Not too shabby. I also found that Bowl game viewership was up by 3.5% over last year, and BCS bowl viewership was up by 7 % over last year (is it's popularity growing???). NFL playoff ratings across the board have been down in the last 3 years (is it's popularity declining or is it just the teams that were playing?).

Also take in to consideration that most of those bowls listed are broadcast on ESPN, not CBS, FOX, or NBC like all the NFL's playoff games (and March Madness, for that matter). They also happen during the week, people are busier (especially with the holiday season) and have less time to watch games.

March madness 2008 Numbers for fun:

According to Nielsen Media Research, the 15 first- and second-round windows of the tournament, which ran March 20-23, averaged a 4.8 rating/11 share, with 7.5 million total viewers tuning in to check on the office pools. That number, however, represents a 9% decline from last year's 5.3/12, making this year’s the lowest-rated opening weekend of the NCAA basketball tournament since 2003.

Not that impressive, even compared with the mediocre bowl games. At least not something that is touted as 'way more exciting and popular' than college bowls.

Discuss.

 

[Schnoodler]

I read this three times and still can't come up with the point. To me it looks like college football is doing quite poorly comparitively. The best college game barely get's close to a quarter final pro game. Only three of the 34 bowl games beat the worst pro game. The first round BB games kill the lower level football games. I think overall those stats show a pretty dismal post season effort by the NCAA in college football. There appears to be alot of money left on the table. To compare a little more similarly do you have the sweet 16, quarters, four and championship game numbers for college basketball? My belief is that college football is more popular than basketball, I'm not sure if that's true, but I would expect to see football kick BB's butt in the top games.

Also, more comparison, how does the finals in college ball compare to the finals in the NBA. That should shine the light on what diff we should expect between pro and college.

 

[Goldmember]

Schnoodler, you are obviously no stranger to statistics. Therefore, I am very surprised that you would argue in favor of more teams from non-BCS conferences being included.

You must be aware that the probability of a team like Boise State getting through their season unbeated is shockingly high compared to a team in a BCS conference. Under this system, Boise State would have bumped Texas Tech if they has scheduled and beaten another BCS-conference opponent.

Who would you say should be included in this system that wasn't?

 

[Goldmember]

It's close. No way it would ever happen, because as you acknowledged in your post, you're giving the Big Ten and Pac 10 first round byes simply by virtue of the fact that they don't play a conference championship game.

But those conferences already play conference championships.

And any benefit that the Big Ten and Pac Ten get out of the defacto "bye" (which already exists), is countered by the fact that they each have one fewer team involved. Also, the Rose Bowl would be the only quarterfinal game to pair two BCS conference champions. Meanwhile, the winners of the Big 12 and SEC championships would get to play teams that did not win a BCS-conference championship. So I figure it's a wash,

Like the current scenario, for casual fans, it would lead the the continued myth that the Big Ten and Pac Ten have one or two super-powers but less depth.

 

[Schnoodler]

And this is the point I keep trying to make. The answer is relative to the question. If the question is simply what is the best post season tournament that will probably contain the best team while at the same time being simple I think yours is fine. But there are more concerns than that. And who says the only goal of a post season tournament is to crown a champion.

I tend to approach this topic not so much as how it should be but how it'll probably be. For that you have to look at what the interests of the stakeholders are.

Furthurmore the present system is self fullfilling in a way. It somewhat preserves the status quo in the power structure of football. But things have changed, with schollie limits and national exposure not limited to the elite programs anymore many non traditional programs and non BCS schools are making a stronger push to get on the national stage. A big recruiting impediment to these schools is the roadblocks to the ultimate glory. Inclusivity is going to be a bigger and bigger issue.

Plus, any system will have to appease alot of the current bowl structure. I think it's easy to envision using the bigger bowls as quarter finals and many plans have utilized that approach but there are 30 other bowls that will be PO'd if left out of the money. The lesser bowls are not going to be happy with being relegated to NIT type status. There will be a strong demand to have upwards of 32 games.

While i think it's a great starting point to discuss all ideas, in the end this is really a negotiation between all D1 schools, and all bowl sponsors, and the media. It will require a system that appeases alot of folks and produces a benefit for most. Fans and purists are not in that negotiaon process except indirectly as consumers. And the marketing guys will be representing us.

So if the question is how do we make sure the best team gets it's shot you get one answer. If you ask what system will generate the most revenues you'll get another, and if you ask which system will appease the direct stakeholders you may get a third. But if you want to guess which way we end up, I'd look at either the revenue picture or the appeasment angle. I don't think most of the stakeholders have crowning the correct champion on top of their list of objectives except publicly.

 

[dinkything]

You really can't pick and choose what counts and what doesn't.

face it...there are quite a number of meaningless bowl games in college football...but that is no fault of college football...

for example, if the minneapolis chamber of commerce got together with the tourism board of minnesota...and decided to host a bowl game in the dome on december 19th of every year...and pitted the 7th place big 10 team against the 5th place sun belt conference team...with the nfl network (that no one i know gets) televised the game

and after several years of carrying on with this charade, the results were that very few attended the game...even fewer watched it on tv...

how would this be an indictment of college football...or a measure of fan interest???

 

[Schnoodler]

Like I said you don't get to pick and choose. The whole revenue generating picture will be considered. The marketing gurus will be looking to expand exposure and generate more $$ not to contract it to satisfy the pursists.

 

[Goldmember]

your proposal, if enacted, would likely kill the great game of college football as we know it...

what we have right now, though imperfect, is the closest thing we have to perfection...

Overall, I am actually opposed to a playoff. But if one must happen (and I think it is inevitable), something like this is the only solution that satisifies everyone and maintains the integrity of the regular season. Some playoff plans concern me greatly. I do think they would destroy the game. This includes any system that "seeds" based on polls or a committee, or any system that makes too much of an effort to include non-BCS teams that refuse to play BCS opponents at the beginning of the season.

This plan just adds a semi-final, championship, and three games to be played alongside the existing conference championships. The rest of the major bowls (Citrus, Holiday, Outback, Peach, Gator, Sun and Alamo) could be filled with the losers of the "first round" (just as they are already).

I think this +2 system actually changes things far less than any +1 system.

 

[dinkything]

Overall, I am actually opposed to a playoff. But if one must happen (and I think it is inevitable), something like this is the only solution that satisifies everyone and maintains the integrity of the regular season. Some playoff plans concern me greatly. I do think they would destroy the game. This includes any system that "seeds" based on polls or a committee, or any system that makes too much of an effort to include non-BCS teams that refuse to play BCS opponents at the beginning of the season.

This plan just adds a semi-final, championship, and three games to be played alongside the existing conference championships. The rest of the major bowls (Citrus, Holiday, Outback, Peach, Gator, Sun and Alamo) could be filled with the losers of the "first round" (just as they are already).

I think this +2 system actually changes things far less than any +1 system.

goldmember,

truth be told, i kinda like your style

although i must say...a college football playoff "mustn't" necessarily happen...imho, it is not 'inevitable'...

in fact, we now have behind us 11 full seasons of college football with the bcs system in place...and in 10 months, we will have completed the 3rd full 'cycle'...with each of the four sites (phoenix/glendale, new orleans, miami, and pasadena) having hosted the bcs championship game on three separate occasions...

soooo...in answer to those who have demanded that the finest system in d1a post-season play be put in place...what did the 'powers that be' do? they answered in the affirmative!!

here is their answer, which was given late last fall...less than four months ago...and which i wholeheartedly endorse

http://www.bcsfootball.org/cfb/story/8818950/BCS-moving-to-ESPN-in-2011

 

[RodentRampage]

That's not an answer of any sort. All it is signing a contract with ESPN to broadcast the BCS games. (I oppose signing with ESPN, I prefer the games to be broadcast on OTA channels) Even if the NCAA were to move to a playoff system, it would take time to implement.

 

[dinkything]

That's not an answer of any sort. All it is signing a contract with ESPN to broadcast the BCS games. (I oppose signing with ESPN, I prefer the games to be broadcast on OTA channels) Even if the NCAA were to move to a playoff system, it would take time to implement.

sure rampage...whatever...

with 11 years of selective whining that the current bcs system is either biased, unfair, imperfect, fatally flawed, doomed to failure, exclusionary, or whatever other nonsense that keeps being spewed...

what does college football collectively do??? they sign up for 4 years of 'more of the same'

sounds like an outstanding decision to me...would hate to mess with a great thing!!!

 

[RodentRampage]

Roll your eyes all you want, I'm just presenting facts. You are trying to make it appear as if extending the BCS system constitutes some sort of resounding endorsement, as if the NCAA had put of a monument to the BCS. It's not. It's just an extension.